Hubbard v. State

Evidence that the defendant was present for many hours in the common area of an apartment complex where he did not live, he was intoxicated, and he harassed two women returning to the complex at 4 a.m. supported his conviction for loitering.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

After a bench trial, Seneca Hubbard was convicted of possession of cocaine and loitering. He appeals, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress based on the absence of probable cause to arrest and the sufficiency of the evidence as to the loitering conviction. Because the record reveals that there was probable cause for Hubbard’s arrest and that there is enough evidence from which a rational trier of fact could have found Hubbard guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of loitering, we affirm. 1. On appellate review of a criminal conviction, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, and the appellant no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence. Daniels v. State , 298 Ga. App. 736 681 SE2d 642 2009. This court does not weigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses, but determines only if the evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to have found the appellant guilty of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

So viewed, the evidence shows that on November 28, 2009, Kimber’Lee Dawes and Elle Wallace left Dawes’s apartment to go to a club with friends. As they pulled out of the apartment complex parking lot, they saw a man, later identified as Hubbard, sitting on the steps in the complex’s common area with a bottle of liquor. When Dawes and Wallace returned to the complex at approximately four o’clock in the morning of the following day, they saw that Hubbard was still on the steps. As the women got out of their car, Hubbard, who appeared to be intoxicated and smelled of alcohol, approached them, blocking their access to the stairs leading to Dawes’ apartment. Frightened, Dawes and Wallace got back in the car, locked the doors and began to drive away. As they did so, Hubbard followed them on foot, talking loudly and tapping on the car window.

Hubbard v. State

Evidence that the defendant was present for many hours in the common area of an apartment complex where he did not live, he was intoxicated, and he harassed two women returning to the complex at 4 a.m. supported his conviction for loitering.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report